International Journal of Research in Engineering and Science (IJRES)

ISSN (Online): 2320-9364, ISSN (Print): 2320-9356

www.ijres.org Volume 3 Issue 1 Jan. 2015 PP.48-64

Decision Support System for Energy Saving Analysis in

Manufacturing Industry
D. O. Fakorede1, A. I. Babatunde2 ,S. A. OJOMU3
1

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Cross River University of Technology, Calabar-Nigeria

2
Edo State Agricultural Development Programme Benin city-Nigeria.
3
Department of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, Cross River University of Technology, Calabar-Nigeria

ABSTRACTNowadays the attempts to optimize energy efficiency and environmental impact are increasingly
present in all activity areas and specifically in manufacturing industry. An innovative approach to achieve these
optimizations lies in advanced combination of decision support technologies and Knowledge Management. A
benchmarking energy saving tool (decision support tool) was carried out in four (4) different years, 2007 to
2010 in Niger mills limited, located in Calabar to generate energy intensity and energy intensity index of the
period. The result obtained for energy intensity in 2007 was 2.30GJ/m 3, Energy intensity for 2008 was
2.30GJ/m3, Energy intensity for 2009 was 2.40GJ/m3, and energy intensity for 2010 was 2.30GJ/m 3. This result
shows that for the period of these four years, that the energy consumed is in an average range of 2.30GJ/m 3.
That if the productivity increase as the result of increase in production, the energy intensity will increase to
2.40GJ/m3 or there about as the case maybe as a result of increase in production.
Keywords: optimization, intensity, innovative, decision, energy, improvement.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Since the beginning of industrial age, Energy has and still playing a very important role in development.
The growth in the world economy has been driven by the increased use of energy and it will remain prevalent in
future. Between 1970 and 2005, primary energy production world-wide grew by 84%. In 2005, fossil fuels
account for 85% of all energy produced and industrial sector was the largest user of energy, accounting for 33%
of total en ergy used. Within that sector, manufacturing accounts for about 73% of industrial energy use (Evans,
2003).
The Improvement in the world standard of living has been dependent in large part on the increase use of
fossil fuels to generate energy. However, It is becoming clear that the growth in their use cannot continue
indefinitely at its present rate, as it contribution to the ecosystem is at a high negative side. More seriously,
environmental and climate change are having a detrimental effect on our world and approximately one-third of
global energy demand and CO2 emissions is attributable to manufacturing industry. These increasing energy
problems worldwide are raising awareness of impact of energy use upon our environment, and this is a clear
need to address energy saving potentials in manufacturing industries. Also there is need to analyze on-site the
management of energy within the factory, with the goal to optimize it. The need to adapt quickly to business
trends imposed by increases in energy demand should be factories major concerns, thus targets for energy
savings can be set by indexing the results of production analysis and by defining a decision support system
during decision making.
Decision support system as an innovative approach have found utility in the deregulated energy markets of
Europe, as is evidenced in research into ways of measuring efficiency and utility of decision support models
using stochastic models (Lahdelma et al, 2006). Some of the uses of Decision Support Systems (DSS) in energy
modeling in Europe are for determining the optimum price of energy, and also for determining how much
excess energy capacity is required to service periods of peak energy demand. DSS is used for planning not only
where to locate energy generating infrastructure, but also for determining how much energy is produced,
whether or not to build capacity in excess of the local demand, the environmental costs of building energy
infrastructure at specific locations, and so on. However, energy planning in Africa, specifically Nigeria, is not as
sophisticated. And to date, there are not many instances of DSS technology in use for the planning of any aspect
of electric energy generation.

Decision support approach for efficient energy flow

In the operational stage, decisions towards energy efficiency are usually undertaken with the support of
energy audit and survey procedures. Energy auditing of the plant ranges from a short walk-through survey to a
detailed analysis with hourly computer simulation. Any actions in a plant undertaken during its operational stage

www.ijres.org

48 | Page

Decision Support System for Energy Saving Analysis in Manufacturing Industry

can be either refurbishment or retrofit. The term refurbishment implies the necessary modifications in order to
return a plant to its original state, while retrofit includes the necessary actions that will improve the plants
energy and/or environmental performance.
The state of practice procedure for the improvement of a factorys energy efficiency in its operational phase
follows four steps:

Criteria
main
categories

Plant
analysizing

Figure: 1

Walkthrough
survey

Creation of
reference
building

Evaluation
of energy
saving
measures

Procedure for the improvement of energy efficiency in its operational phase

Step 1: plants analysis. The main purpose of this step is to evaluate the characteristics of the energy systems
and the patterns of energy use for the building. The building characteristics can be collected from the
mechanical/ electrical drawings and/or from discussions with plants operators. The energy use patterns can be
obtained from a compilation of utility bills over several years. Analysis of the historical variation of the utility
bills allows the energy auditor to determine if there are any seasonal and weather effects on the plants energy
use.
Step 2: Walk-through survey. Potential energy saving measures is identified in this part. The results of this
step are important since they determine whether the plant warrants any further energy auditing work. Some of
the tasks involved in this step are:
Identification of the customer concerns and needs;
Checking of the current operating and maintenance procedures;
Determination of the existing operating conditions of major energy use equipment (lighting, heating
ventilation and air-conditioning systems, motors, etc.);
Estimation of the occupancy, equipment and lighting (energy use density and hours of operation).
Step 3: Creation of the reference building. The main purpose of this step is to develop a base-case model,
using energy analysis and simulation tools, that represents the existing energy use and operating conditions of
the plant. This model is to be used as a reference to estimate the energy savings incurred from appropriately
selected energy conservation measures.
Step 4: Evaluation of energy saving measures. In this step, a list of cost-effective energy conservation
measures is determined using both energy saving and economic analysis. A predefined list of energy
conservation measures is prepared. The energy savings due to the various energy conservation measures
pertinent to the plant using the baseline energy use simulation model are evaluated. The initial costs required to
implement the energy conservation measures are estimated. The cost-effectiveness of each energy conservation
measure using an economic analysis method (simple payback or life cycle cost analysis) is assessed.
Regardless of the dwellings phase (design or operational), energy efficiency and sustainability in the plant
is a complex problem. This is attributed mainly to the fact that plants consist of numerous subsystems that
interrelate with each other. Therefore plants sustainability is reached by taking the necessary decisions that are
optimum for the overall system. This implies a decision support approach with the following steps:

www.ijres.org

49 | Page

Decision Support System for Energy Saving Analysis in Manufacturing Industry

Identification of the overall goal in making a decision, subsidiary objectives and the various indices or
criteria against which option performance may be measured (objective function);
identification of the alternative options or strategies;
Assessment of each option and/or strategy performance against the defined criteria;
Weighting of objectives or criteria;
Evaluation of the overall performance;
Evaluation and ranking of options;
Sensitivity analysis.

Start

Definition of
goals

Building
data

Definition of
actions or
scenarios

Data
collection

Selection of
assessment
methods
Application of
assessment
methods

Economic,
environmental
goals

Energy
saving
measures

Energy
efficiency
improvement
methods

Sensitivity
analysis

Factory

Acceptable
solution

Adaptation of
solution

End
Figure 2.

DSS approach model

The roles of DSS

The functions and qualities of a DSS can be summarized as follows:
Semi-structured and unstructured problems definition and resolution

www.ijres.org

50 | Page

Decision Support System for Energy Saving Analysis in Manufacturing Industry

Supports managers at all levels
Supports individuals and groups
Interdependent or sequential decisions
Supports intelligence, design, choice, implementation
Supports a variety of decision processes and styles
Adaptable and flexible
Interactive ease of use
Effectiveness, not efficiency
Humans control the process
Ease of development by end user
Modeling and analysis
Data access
Standalone, integration and web-based
The functions of the most interest for the study are the ones dealing with modeling and analysis.

STANDALONE,
INTERGRATION AND
WEB-BASED

SEMISTRUCTURED
AND UNSTRUTURED
PROBLEMS

SUPPORT
INDIVIDUALS AND
GROUPS

DATA ACCESS

INTERDEPENDENT OR
SEQUENTIAL DECISIONS

MODELING AND
ANALYSIS

DSS
SUPPORT INTELLIGENCE,
DESIGN, CHOICE,
IMPLEMENTATION

EASE OF DEVELOPMENT
BY END USERS
HUMANS CONTROL
THE PROCESS
EFFECTIVENESS, NOT
EFFICIENCY

SUPPORT MANAGERS
AT ALL LEVEL

SUPPORT VARIETY OF
DECISION PROCESSESS
AND STYLES
INTERACTIVE EASE OF USE

Figure 3.

ADAPTABLE AND
FLEXIBLE

Diagram of DSS roles

Methods of data sourcing through DSS

Traditionally, the decision makers of Niger mill are seen as the focal point of organizational choices. It
therefore become very important to understand how decision makers arrive at the choices they make. The
solution of a problem is not only a factor of the information available on the subject matter, but the knowledge
from the information, experience in resolving similar issues, and learning ability were far more important factors
in making good decisions rather than the quantum of available information. Literature is strewn with instances
of operational, marketing, strategic and tactical failings within businesses with an abundance of information,
that were corrected by adopting key decision support systems principles. Thus, the follow subsystem of DSS
was adopted in this research:
a. Data Management Subsystem
b. Model Management Subsystem
c. User Interface (Dialog) Subsystem
d. Knowledge based Management Subsystem

www.ijres.org

51 | Page

Decision Support System for Energy Saving Analysis in Manufacturing Industry

a.

b.

c.

Data management subsystem encompasses all the activities geared towards the administration of data
systems, the representation of data and the channels of interaction between data and the end user (or
model user). A lack of good data, or information could pose major problems to decision making, as
the ability of the information available to sustain the decision and to yield a certain projected (positive)
outcome is based on the good quality of the information (or the information source).
Model management subsystem involves the templates and structures that describe how data, and
processes flows, and are utilized for the purpose of achieving targets and goals. The model gives
formalization to the decision process, and removes the arbitrariness and ad hoc representation that
would otherwise describe the process. Decisions should not occur in a vacuum, and even in well
articulated and thought-out processes, the choices to be made must conform to the underlying
objectives that are being pursued. Therefore, with a data subsystem providing the assortment of
choices, the model could be likened to a filtration system through which such choices are strained in
order to get the most efficient and optimal outcomes.
User interface and dialog subsystem attempts to depict and translate the real world intentions and
conceptualization of the user into computer graphical and textual notation. The effective interface
should offer the user perspectives of the real world equivalents connected with the actions being carried
out.

Figure 4.

Energy planning user interface structure

d.

Knowledge based subsystem, which functions as a fulcrum for the other subsystems. It is said that the
world today is moving away for an information society towards a knowledge society in which
knowledge forms the major component of any human activity. Economic, social, cultural, and all other
human activities become dependent on a huge volume of knowledge and distilled information.
Knowledge has thus become the major source of creative impetus. The knowledge based subsystem
functions on both an intuitive and technical dimension technical because the available knowledge
would influence the 23 programming approach towards designing a model, and intuitive because the
information from available data is internalized by decision maker to arrive at what constitutes
knowledge in any given instance.
A schematic view of the connection and relationship between the subsystems and other elements of the DSS is
shown as follows:

www.ijres.org

52 | Page

Decision Support System for Energy Saving Analysis in Manufacturing Industry

Figure 5.

Schematics of DSS

DSS modeling approach

A model for decision support is a template upon which decision variables are applied so as to derive an optimal
result of how certain tasks should be carried out. The objective of many decision support systems is to optimize
processes and practices in some ways. This is usually achieved by using techniques like Fuzzy sets, Bayesian
nets, mixed integer programming or linear programming to derive better outcomes for a chosen task or activity.
In the case of Niger Mills which have multi-criteria energy problems, a multi-objective criteria modeling is
used to analyze such problems. A decision support system for energy analysis would have as criteria the
requirement to maximize energy output, to maximize the spread of energy resources used, and to minimize
costs. A satisfying solution for a decision model would be one that fits the needs of all the contending criteria as
best as possible.
Mathematical programming is a technique for solving problems involving maximization or minimization,
subject to constraints on resource, capacity, supply, demand, and such other criteria. AMPL is a language for
programmatically specifying such optimization problems. It provides an algebraic notation that is very close to
the way that you would describe a problem mathematically, so that it is easy to convert from a familiar
mathematical description to AMPL.
The selection of AMPL as utility for describing the core model of this study is borne out of the ease of
translation of the mathematical expressions defining the problem into an equivalent program expression. The
pattern of DSS construction flows from a constructive model design to a preferential model design which is then
subject to the intuitive and experiential manipulation of the modeler. In that guise, the constructive model (core
model) will be described using AMPL.
Ultimately, the goal will be to describe a generic model incorporating as many energy sources as can
be motivated from available resource information, at minimal energy generating cost and with maximum energy
output levels; and secondarily to accommodate various combinations and a scenarios of energy source,
expenditure level and output targets as suits the particular intentions of decision makers.
Multi-objective criteria modelling
A basis for dimensioning decision models that would be suitable for this discussion is the expected
outcomes resultant from the model. The classic decision optimization formula is:
y = f (x) x Xo
The outcome y represents a result of variable choices x belonging to the set space, Xo. Criteria can be
introduced into the objective space to frame the possibilities of outcomes, in line with the principle of bounded

www.ijres.org

53 | Page

Decision Support System for Energy Saving Analysis in Manufacturing Industry

rationality. This formulation reduces very elegantly under linear computation to a bounded valuation that
satisfies the mathematical condition, resolving into a model
y = f (x) Rn

y Rm

Where, Rn and Rm are sets of bounded possible variables and outcomes.

Decision making towards energy utilization at Niger mills, aims at reaching an outcome that is acceptable. The
concept leans on the theory of bounded rationality, which states that humans have a limited capacity to
assimilate and process all factors that can be considered in reaching some decision or conclusion. Rather than
attempt to review and satisfy all possibilities, rational possibilities are highlighted, within the cognitive
limitations of the decision maker, and these are targeted at for optimization. In summary, it can be stated that:
Optimization of decisions, especially in the face of uncertainties, is very difficult and requires support
using models
Decision models do not replace decision, they only enhance the quality
Multi criteria models create conflicts of interest; the conflicts are best resolved by settling for satisfying
rather than optimizing solutions.

II.

METHODOLGY

The methodology adopted for evaluating the project problem and prescribing a solution to the problem
stated in the previous section adopts as much as is possible the precepts for a scientific research as described by
Christian Dawson (Dawson, 2005). For our specific task, the problem domain lies within the field of computer
science, but it can be seen from the review of literature that the application domain of decision support systems
cuts across many subject and industry areas. This chapter explains the research design, data collection and
model specification raised on the study.
Research design
Research design is the starting bonnet is carrying out actual research work. Research design according to
Careenelel (1992) is design to the specification of methods and procedures employed for acquiring the
information needed to source problems. It addressed planning of scientific inquiry designing a strategy for
finding out something and specifies precisely what the researchers want to find out and the best way to do
it.(Babbic, 1986 and Crano et al 1986). This study employed the analytical and descriptive research methods.
Data collection
Information and knowledge gathering is done from review of Niger mills completed in June 2010. The data
collected from the plant are used in this report to company, and the feedback was used to formulate the data
tables that were used as input for the A Mathematical Programming Language (AMPL) model. The gathered
information is then used to motivate an objective. The model for the solution of the function is described using
AMPL, and the data is formatted in AMPL format. A hypothesis is described using the AMPL model as its
basis, and then the AMPL program is run and the outcomes are compared with the null hypothesis. The result is
analyzed and compared with prevailing performance information on energy generation and resource utility, and
based on the analysis the hypothesis is accepted or rejected.
Description of the system
The floor area of the factory is 44100m3 the major sources of energy are electricity from power holding
company of Nigeria (PHCN) and also through generated plants. There are 2 mills in the milling house; one is
the wheat, and the maize mill. The capacity of the wheat mill is 1000 tones per 24 hours but the mill is only used
for about 16hours per day while the capacity of the maize mill is 200 tonnes per day but only used for 8hours
per day.
The system input materials are wheat and maize grains while the output (product) materials are bread flour at
ratio of 0.25, 0.5 of wheat offals (brans), 0.75 of pasta semolina and ratio of 1 for macaroni. The operations
including in the system are energy associated with fuels and lubricants and energy used for all administrative
and other non-production functions (Smith, D. 1998).
The data collected include the following:
Production output from 2007 2010
Electricity, diesel, petrol and lubricant consumed from 2007 2010

www.ijres.org

54 | Page

Decision Support System for Energy Saving Analysis in Manufacturing Industry

Table 1.
MONT
H

Monthly Energy Consumption and Production output for 2007

ELECTRI
CITY
(GJ)

DIESEL
(GJ)

PETROL
(GJ)

JAN

1420.24

7505.25

726.48

FEB

1341.65

6911.61

805.88

MARCH

1123.13

5628.48

APRIL

1058.70

MAY

9651.97

32,173,233.3

TOTAL
PRODUCTIO
N
(TONNES)
16,895.34

9139.29

30,464,300

16,024.32

1125.01

7876.62

26,255,400

14,8014.21

5535.07

803.79

7397.56

24,658,533.3

13,154.14

1019.90

6179.76

589.46

7789.12

25,963,733.3

14,001.21

JUNE

1245.48

6876.23

661.78

8832.69

29.442,300

15,361.40

JULY

1321.12

6594.67

601.15

8516.94

28,389,800

14,695.24

AUGUS
T
SEPT

1414.46

6214.01

590.67

8219.14

28,389,800

14,376.64

925.78

5426.95

642.05

6994.78

27,397,133.3

13,021.41

OCT

1214.28

5680.61

976.12

7871.01

23,315,933.3

14,826.87

NOV

1428.32

5725.23

699.18

16.40

7869.13

26,230,433.3

13,015.35

DEC

1575.23

6940.14

836.25

17.40

9368.84

31,229,466.7

16,342.22

TOTAL

15,088.29

75,218.0
1

9,057.82

162.98

99,527.09

331,756,966.7

175,727.95

MONTH

LUBRICAN
T
(GJ)

80.15

49.21

TOTAL
(GJ)

AMOUNT
(N)

Table 2. Monthly Energy Consumption and Production output for 2008

ELECTRI
DIESEL
PETROL LUBRICA
TOTAL
AMOUNT
CITY
(GJ)
(GJ)
NT
(GJ)
(N)
(GJ)
(GJ)

JAN

1824.25

7215.35

785.13

9824.73

32,749,100

TOTAL
PRODUCTI
ON
(TONNES)
16,321.30

FEB

1536.24

6538.12

933.60

9007.96

30,026,533.33

16,873.24

MARCH

1214.56

5814.92

1331.92

8361.40

27,871,333.33

14,542.16

APRIL

1028.35

5518.24

1320.46

7867.05

26,223,500

14,480.75

MAY

1001.22

5608.56

1152.78

8762.56

29,208,533

14,245.11

JUNE

1658.25

4685.25

1255.39

24.59

7623.48

25,411,600

13,987.20

JULY

1321.59

4859.66

1137.80

61.39

8380.44

27,934,800

13,678.27

AUGUST

1674.32

4975.84

1371.80

8021.96

26,739,866.67

14,735.16

SEPT

975.24

6253.05

949.72

8178.01

27,260,033.3

14,813.48

OCT

1531.52

4895.06

1208.92

7635.39

25,451,300

13,124.19

NOV

1321.52

5510.23

989.97

16.20

7837.92

26,126,400

14,432.23

DEC

1815.21

5650.16

889.92

16.20

8371.49

27,904,966.7

14,786.53

TOTAL

16,902.16

67,524.44

13,327.41

118.38

99,872.39

332,907,966.7

176,019.62

www.ijres.org

55 | Page

Decision Support System for Energy Saving Analysis in Manufacturing Industry

Table 3. Monthly Energy Consumption and Production output for 2009
MONTH

ELECTRI
CITY
(GJ)

DIESEL
(GJ)

PETROL
(GJ)

9788.86

32,629,533.3

TOTAL
PRODUCTIO
N
(TONNES)
16,887.21

8901.35

29,671,166.7

1,4885.38

16.20

8311.59

27,705,300

13,978.68

49.52

9327.05

31,090,166.7

13,725.62

8654.99

28,849,966.7

13,789.76

7883.77

26,279,233.2

13544.11

6954.11

23,180,366.7

13,335.26

16.80

9430.11

31,433,700

15,878.54

64.78

7987.01

26,623,366.7

13,872.43

2402.29

8879.95

29,599,833.3

14,895.26

6336.38

998.79

8917.40

29,724,666.7

15,375.24

1699.43

7106.23

866.40

16.40

9688.46

32,294,866.7

16,435.48

16,036.01

72,609.71

15,866.03

212.88

104724.63

349,089,100

176,602.95

JAN

1783.64

6986.69

985.75

FEB

1321.61

6257.94

1321.74

MARCH

1048.35

6102.84

1144.20

APRIL

1132.31

6653.7

1491.52

MAY

1109.60

6282.52

1262.87

JUNE

1354.48

5168.84

1344.05

JULY

1465.21

4251.10

1237.80

AUGUST

1541.46

6704.05

1167.80

SEPT

982.87

5296.58

1642.78

OCT

1014.82

5462.84

NOV

1582.23

DEC
TOTAL

Table 4.
MONTH

ELECTRI
CITY
(GJ)

LUBRICA
NT
(GJ)
32.78

16.40

TOTAL
(GJ)

AMOUNT
(N)

Monthly energy consumption and production output for 2010

DIESEL
(GJ)

PETROL
(GJ)

JAN

1638.46

7237.07

887.57

FEB

1312.16

5852.83

1223.21

MARCH

1123.13

4521.13

1312.08

APRIL

1048.35

5078.12

1351.79

MAY

1245.84

5694.31

1236.87

JUNE

1564.21

5915.69

1222.06

JULY

1241.46

5487.77

1315.40

AUGUST

842.78

6464.44

1108.75

SEPT

1541.64

6009.10

1412.92

OCT

1104.28

5208.48

1143.81

NOV

1528.23

4699.66

1125.53

DEC

1658.34

6466.31

878.45

TOTAL

15,848.88

66,664.91

14,188.40

LUBRIC
ANT
(GJ)

9763.10

32,543,666.7

TOTAL
PRODUCTIO
N
(TONNES)
16,985.30

35.36

8388.20

27,960,666.7

14,987.65

32.74

7989.08

26,630266.6

13,324.32

8458.26

24,827,400

13,515.74

8193.42

23,978066.7

12,415.63

8731.96

29,106,533.3

15,895.47

30.27

8074.90

26,916,333.3

14,885.22

16.40

8462.37

28,207,900

13,431.22

8963.66

29,878,866.7

15,975.64

8505.75

25,019,166.6

14,448.56

8353.42

27,844,733.3

13,773.67

80.74

9083.84

30,279,466.6

16,672.85

261.09

99,993.28

333,310,933,3

17,631.28

16.40

49.18

TOTAL
(GJ)

AMOUNT
(N)

Benchmarking and Energy-Saving Tool (BEST) for manufacturing industry

Benchmarking is a commonly-used term that generally means comparing a defined characteristic of one
facility to other facilities or other benchmarks. In the context of this study, benchmarking focuses on energy
consumption in a plant. Instead of comparing the level of energy consumption from one plant to other plants
which might have different configurations, use different raw materials, and produce different types of product.
This study compares a flour facility to an identical hypothetical facility that uses commercially-available best

www.ijres.org

56 | Page

Decision Support System for Energy Saving Analysis in Manufacturing Industry

practice technologies for each major manufacturing process. The Benchmarking and Energy Savings Tool is a
process-based tool based on commercially available energy-efficiency technologies used anywhere in the world
applicable to the flour industry. No actual flour facility with every single efficiency measure included in the
benchmark will likely exist; however, the benchmark sets a reasonable standard by which to compare for plants
striving to be the best. The energy consumption of the benchmark facility differs due to differences in
processing at a given flour facility. The tool accounts for most of these variables and allows the user to adapt the
model to operational variables specific for the flour facility. BEST compares a facility to international or
domestic best practice using an energy intensity index (EII) which is calculated based on the facilitys energy
intensity and the benchmark energy intensity. The EII is a measurement of the total production energy intensity
of a flour facility compared to the benchmark energy intensity as in the following equation:
= 100

= 100

--------------( eqn 3.1)

Where
= energy intensity index
= number of products to be aggregated
= actual energy intensity for products
,BP = best practice energy intensity for products
= production quantity for product i (each product).
= total actual energy consumption for all products
The EII is then used to calculate the energy efficiency potential at the facility by comparing the actual plant's
intensity to the intensity that would result if the plant used "reference" best technology for each process step. By
definition (see equation 1), a plant that uses the benchmark or reference technology will have an EII of 100. In
practice, actual flour plants will have an EII greater than 100. The gap between actual energy intensity at each
process step and the reference level energy consumption can be viewed as the technical energy efficiency
potential of the plant. Results are provided in terms of primary energy (electricity includes transmission and
generation losses in addition to the heat conversion factor) or final energy (electricity includes only the heat
conversion factor). BEST also provides an estimate of the potential for annual energy savings (both for
electricity and fuel) and energy costs savings, if the facility would perform at the same performance level as the
benchmark or reference flour plant. All intensities are given as comprehensive intensities. Comprehensive
electricity intensity is equal to the total electricity consumed per tonne of flour produced. Similarly,
comprehensive fuel intensity is equal to the total fuel consumed per tonne of flour produced, based on the raw
materials input (wheat and maize grains).

III.

RESULT

This chapter focuses on the result and discussion of the findings, due to the presentation of data collection
from the researched based.
Data presentation and calculation
From the data presented in the previous chapter, we computed the total summary of energy consumed through
the years;
Total Energy Consumed:
This is the summation of the amount of electricity; lubricants, diesel and petrol used after conversion to energy
and are shown in the table below:
Table 5. total energy consumed over the period
Energy source
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
(GJ)
Electricity

15088.29

16902.16

16036.01

15848.88

63875.34

Lubricants

162.98

118.38

212.88

261.09

755.33

Diesel

75218.01

69524.41

72609.71

69694.91

287047.04

Petrol

9057.82

13327.41

15866.03

14188.40

52439.72

Total

99527.10

99872.39

104724.63

99993.28

404117.43

www.ijres.org

57 | Page

Decision Support System for Energy Saving Analysis in Manufacturing Industry

Intensity of energy:
3
This is defined as the ratio of annual energy consumed in GJ to the factory floor area in m .
To calculate the intensity of energy for the period of 4years i.e. 2007 2010 using the intensity
formula:
( )
3
Intensity of energy () (GJ/m ) =
--------- (eqn 4.1)
3
( )

Where the surface area was given to be 44100m , so that the energy intensity for 2007 will
be:
99527 .10
3
Energyinten =
= 2.26 =2.30GJ/m

Intensity of energy for 2008:

99872 .39
3
Energyinten =
= 2.26=2.30GJ/m

Intensity of energy for 2009:

104724 .63
3
Energyinten =
= 2.36=2.40GJ/m

44100

44100

44100

Intensity of energy for 2010:

99993.28
3
Energyinten =
= 2.267=2.30GJ/m
44100
Plotting a graph with the relationship of the intensity of energy to the period of years
Fig 4.1. Intensity of energy for period of four years

2.5

2.0

2.30GJ
/m3

2.30GJ
/m3

2007

2008

2.40GJ
/m3

2.30GJ
/m3

(GJ/m3)

1.5

1.0

0.5

2010

2009

Period
After calculating the intensity of energy for the period of 2007 2010, we look at the energy intensity
index of each year using the benchmarking energy saving model, which is represented
mathematically as:
= 100

= 100
,

www.ijres.org

58 | Page

Decision Support System for Energy Saving Analysis in Manufacturing Industry

Using the formula to generate the energy intensity index for 2007
Where; = 99527.10GJ
= ?
,BP=2.30GJ/m

n= no of product aggregated = 4 (Bread flour + wheat, pasta semolina + macaroni). Assuming

bread flour = =1, wheat = = 2, pasta = = 3, macaroni = = 4

Calculating for production quantity of bread flour(), when = 1, recall =1 (bread flour) was
produce at 0.25 ratio.

Therefore, = total production of products in 2007 0.25

= 175727.95 0.25 = 43931.99bags

Production quantity for wheat ( = 2)

When = 2, recall = 2 was produce at 0.5 ratio

= total production of products in 2007 0.5
= 175727.95 0.5 = 87863.97bags

Production quantity for pasta ( = 3)

When = 3, and was produce at 0.75 ratio

= total production of products in 2007 0.75
= 175727.95 0.95 = 131,795,96bags

Production quantity for macaroni ( = 4)

When = 4, and produce at 1 ratio

= total production of products in 2007 1
= 175727.95 1 = 175727.95

Inputting the data into the equation to get the energy intensity of each product in 2007
= 100
For bread flour,
= 100
For wheat,
= 100
For pasta,
= 100
For macaroni,
= 100

Ratio

1
2
3
4

0.25
0.5
0.75
1

=1

99527 .10
4 43931 .99 2.30
=1

99527 .10
4 87863 .97 2.30
=2

= 98.45
= 49.24

99527.10
4
=3 131795.96

2.30

= 32.43

99527.10
= 24.62
2.30

4
=4 175727

Table 6. energy data for 2007

Product

Bread flour
Wheat
Pasta
Macaroni

43931.99
87863.97
131795.96
175727.95

www.ijres.org

99527.10
99527.10
99527.10
99527.10

2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30

98.48
49.24
32.43
24.62

59 | Page

Decision Support System for Energy Saving Analysis in Manufacturing Industry

Therefore, the total energy intensity index for the year 2007 is the sum total of all the energy intensity
index of each product;
98.45+49.24 + 32.43 + 24.62 = .
Using the formula to calculate the energy intensity index for 2008
Where, =99872.39GJ
, BP=2.30GJ/m

=?
n =4

Calculating for production quantity of bread flour(), when = 1, recall =1 (bread flour) was
produce at 0.25 ratio
=176019.62 0.25 = 44004.91bags

For wheat,
When = 2, 0.5 ratio
= 176019.62 0.5 = 88009.81bags

For pasta,
When = 3, 0.75 ratio
= 176019.62 0.75 = 132014.72bags

For macaroni
When = 4, 1 ratio
= 176019.62 1 = 176019.62bags

Inputting the data into the equation to get the energy intensity of each product in 2008
= 100

For bread flour,

= 100

For wheat,
= 100

For pasta,
= 100

For macaroni
= 100

Ratio

1
2
3
4

0.25
0.5
0.75
1

=1

99872 .39
4 44004 .91 2.30
=1

99872 .39
4 88009 .81 2.30
=2

99872 .39
4 132014 .72 2.30
=3

99872 .39
4 176019 .62 2.30
=3

= 98.68
= 49.34
= 32.89
= 24.67

Table 7. energy data for 2008

Product

Bread flour
Wheat
Pasta
Macaroni

44004.91
88009.81
132014.72
176019.62

99872.39
99872.39
99872.39
99872.39

2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30

98.68
49.34
32.89
24.67

Therefore, the total energy intensity index for the year 2008 is the sum total of all the energy intensity
index of each product;
=98.68+49.32+32.89+24.67 = 205.56

www.ijres.org

60 | Page

Decision Support System for Energy Saving Analysis in Manufacturing Industry

Using the formula to calculate the energy intensity index for 2009
Where, =104724.63GJ
, BP=2.40GJ/m

=?
n =4

Calculating for production quantity of bread flour(), when = 1, recall =1 (bread flour) was
produce at 0.25 ratio
= total production of products in 2009
= 176602.95 0.25 = 44150.5

For wheat = 2, 0.5

= 176602.95 0.5 = 88301.5

For pasta, = 3, 0.75

= 176602.95 0.75 = 132452.2

For macaroni, = 4, 1
= 176602.95 1 = 176602.95

Inputting the data into the equation to get the energy intensity of each product in 2009
= 100
For bread flour,
= 100

104724.63
= 98.80
2.40

4
=1 44150.5

For wheat,
= 100

104724.63
= 49.42
2.40

4
=2 88301.5

For pasta,
= 100
For macaroni,
= 100

Ratio

1
2
3
4

0.25
0.5
0.75
1

4 ,
=1

104724 .63
4 132452 .22.40
=3

=32.94

104724.63
= 24.71
2.40

4
=4 176602.95

Table 8. Energy data for 2009

Product

Bread flour
Wheat
Pasta
Macaroni

44150.5
88301.5
132452.2
176602.95

104724.63
104724.63
104724.63
104724.63

2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40

98.80
49.42
32.94
24.71

Therefore, the total energy intensity index for the year 2009 is the sum total of all the energy intensity
index of each product;
=98.8+49.42+32.94+24.71=205.87
Using the formula to calculate the energy intensity index for 2010
Where, =99993.28GJ
, BP=2.30GJ/m

=?
n =4

www.ijres.org

61 | Page

Decision Support System for Energy Saving Analysis in Manufacturing Industry

Calculating for production quantity of bread flour(), when = 1, recall =1 (bread flour) was
produce at 0.25 ratio
= total production of products in 2009
= 176311.28 0.25 = 44077.82

For wheat = 2, 0.5

= 176311.28 0.5 = 88155.64

For pasta, = 3, 0.75

= 176311.28 0.75 = 132233.46

For macaroni, = 4, 1
= 176311.28 1 = 176311.28

Inputting the data into the equation to get the energy intensity of each product in 2010

= 100 4
=1 ,

For bread flour,

= 100

99993.28
= 98.63
2.30

4
=1 44077.82

For wheat,
= 100

99993.28
= 49.32
2.30

4
=2 88155.64

For pasta,
= 100
For macaroni,
= 100

Ratio

1
2
3
4

0.25
0.5
0.75
1

99993.28
4 132233 .462.30
=3

=32.88

99993.28
4
=4 176311.28

2.30

= 24.66

Table 9. Energy data for 2010

Product

Bread flour
Wheat
Pasta
Macaroni

44077.82
88155.64
132233.46
176311.28

99993.28
99993.28
99993.28
99993.28

2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30

98.63
49.32
32.88
24.66

Therefore, the total energy intensity index for the year 2010 is the sum total of all the energy intensity
index of each product;
= 98.63+49.32+32.88+24.66 =205.49
From the data derived after calculating the energy intensity index of each year, the table below was
derived. We can actually know the energy efficiency potential of the plant. Recall that the benchmark
energy saving tool stress that in practice, the must be greater than 100.
Table 10. Energy intensity index for each year.

204.74

205.56

205.87

205.49

PERIOD

2007

2008

2009

2010

www.ijres.org

62 | Page

Decision Support System for Energy Saving Analysis in Manufacturing Industry

Using the data above, we plot a graph on the relationship of the to the period

225
200

Fig 4.2. Energy intensity index for the period

204.74

205.56

205.87

205.49

150

100

Ref. point

50

0
2007

2008

IV.

2009

2010

(period)

DISCUSSION

From the result of the above analysis obtain from the period shows a slight change in the energy intensity
(EI) and energy intensity index (EII). 2009 was discovered to be the most un-efficient due to high rate of unefficient use of energy during the production phase of that year.
In the year 2010, it was observed to be the most efficient from the benchmarking evergy saving tool (BEST) due
to its lest rate of EII.
Due to the possible variation in the energy usage, decision-makers in Niger mill can base on the result analysis
compare the performance information derived to generate an hypothesis either accepted or rejected.

V.

CONCLUSION

The research concludes that Decision Support Systems are assuming a bigger and more critical role in
business decision making and resource management. From the analysis at the previous chapter, a DSS approach
to solving problems must begin with an in-depth analysis of the whole energy system. As such the decision
making is premised on the synthesis of data and information; such synthesis being achieved using an optimizing
or satisfying model. The AMPL tool (benchmarking or energy saving tool) an energy model offers a quick-tolearn and deploy tool for achieving the optimization goals that affect decision making when planning to invest in
energy capacity expansion. The results from the analysis show that the model generates values that are better
than the default state and would serve as a good decision support resource.

VI.

RECOMMENDATION

Upon the finding of this study, it is then relevant to make some recommendations. The following points if
seriously considered could go a long way to solve most of the energy problems that is affecting manufacturing
industry in the country

www.ijres.org

63 | Page

Decision Support System for Energy Saving Analysis in Manufacturing Industry

Every manufacturing firm should take advantage of these analytical tools (DSS) used to resolve
decisionmaking problems in the operations and scheduling of various energy generating or
consumption facilities of plant.
The schedule must meet their respective energy commitment and maximize the economic returns from
the operations of their facilities.
A decision support based approach should be used in the energy sector to enable the managers choice
of decision.

VII.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Our profound gratitude goes God Almighty.

REFERENCES
[1.]
[2.]
[3.]
[4.]
[5.]
[6.]
[7.]
[8.]
[9.]
[10.]
[11.]
[12.]
[13.]
[14.]
[15.]
[16.]
[17.]
[18.]
[19.]
[20.]
[21.]
[22.]
[23.]
[24.]
[25.]
[26.]
[27.]

Baumhogger, F., et al. (1998). MESAP, Version 3.1 Germany: Institution of Energy Economics and the Rational use of energy
(IER); P.1-511.
Climaco, J., et al (1995) A multiple objective linear programming model for power generation expansion planning.
International journal of energy research, Vol. 19, 419- 432.
Cormio, C., et al (2003). A regional energy planning methodology including renewable energy sources and environmental
constricts. Renew sustain energy, Rev. 2003.7:99-130.
Dag, H., et al (2005): Modelling and optimization of electricity, steam and district heating production for a local Swedish
utility. European Journal of operational Research. In press.
Dawson, C. (2005); Projects in computing and information systems: A students Guide, Pearson press.
D. kolokotsa , et. Al.(2009) Decision support methodologies on the energy efficiency and energy management in buildings,
Vol. 3, pages 121-146.
D. stokic, (2006), Ambient Intelligence in manufacturing industry; control system point of view, the 8 th IASTED conference on
control and Applications, CA 2006, Montreal, May,2006.
Evans, L. B. (2003). Saving energy in manufacturing with smart technology, vol. 6. No 2.
Georgilakis, P. (2006), State-of-the-Art of Decision support systems of the choice of Renewable Energy sources for Energy
supply in isolated regions, int. journal of Didtributed Energy Resources, Vol. 2, no.2,pp.129-150,2006.
Gongs.s, c.w,Haldi, P.A(2003). Dynamic formulation of top- down and bottom-up merging energy policy model. Energy
policy. 2003, 31, 1017-31.
Han and Kamber (2001). Data mining concept and Techniques, San Diego, CA, Academic press.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_Support_system.
Henk, G. Sol et al. (1987). Expert systems and artificial intelligence in decision support system. Proceedings of the second mini
Euro-conference, Lunteren, the Netherlands, 17-20 November 1985
Holsapple,C.W and A.B whinstone (1996). Decision support system: A Knowledge- Based Approach. St paul west publishing.
ISBN 0-324-03578.0.
Homer,
Homer
Energy
/
National
Renewable
Energy
Laboratory.[computer
software].
Available
:http://www.ceere.org/rerl/rerlhybrid power.html(URL)
Hoog, D. T and Hoobs, B. F(1993). An integrated resource planning model considering customer value, emissions and regional
economic impact energy, vol 18, 1153 -1160.
Industrial energy audits (http://smartenergy./v/indexphp?Option=com-content&view=article&id=12&item id=13&lang=en)
M. Hersh,(1999) sustainable Decision making: the role of Decision system, IEEE Trans. on man and cybermetic-part c.
applications and Reviews, vol.29,no.3,pp.395-408
Nakayama, H., (1994), Aspiration level approach to interactive multi-objective programming and its applications, working
paper 94-112 international institute for applied systems analysis, (IIASA)
Power, D.J.,(2002).Decision support systems:- concepts and resources for managers. Westport, conn. Quorum books.
Ramachandra, T. V, (2007). Regional integrated energy plan; centre for application of science and technology to rural areas
(ASTRA), Bangalore 560 012, India.
R. Allen., (1996). Decision Support System for power system operations Management.
Smith, C.D (1998); efficient electricity use, 3rd edition. Pergamon press, inc oxford.
The Hybrid power system simulation model, Renewable Energy Research Laboratory.(Hybrid2 computer software). Available
:http://www.ceere.org/rerl/rerlhybridpower.html(URL)
Wessels, J. and Wierzbicki, A., (1993), user-oriented methodology and technique for decision analysis and support, vol.397
lectures in economics and mathematical systems, springer-verlag, Berlin.
Wierzbicki, A,(1997), on the role of institution in decision making and some ways of multi-criteria aid of institution, journal of
multi-criteria decision analysis, vol6 pp. 65-72.
Y.yuan and M. J. Shaw(1995). Induction of fuzzy decision trees. Fuzzy sets and systems 69(1995), pp. 125-139.
http://www.wu-wien.ac.at/user/h99c/h9951826/bellman_dynprog.pdf what is dynamic programming.

www.ijres.org

64 | Page